OT: Superman and Stemcells

[deccan]

Ahem, *cough*, let me duck beneath J.O. and Arryn and post in reply to this here:

Skolem said:
First, who say that the logical assumpitions we made are correct?

That's a valid line of philosophical inquiry and one could extend it in all sorts of weird directions, from Hume's skepticism of the validity of induction and the principle of causality to questions as to whether or not the axioms that comprise "classical" logic are in fact "true".

My own philosophical view dodges this problem by accepting that my personal motives / values etc. aren't in fact "logically justified", they simply "are". I wouldn't like to say that this is based on "faith". I regard them as not having a truth value at all.

From there, I can rationally proceed. How can I know that the law of induction is "true". I can't, but I can "know" that it has worked for me in the past (i.e. advanced my values / motives), and so I continue to employ it. Of course, past success does not logically guarantee future success, but what else do I have? Would it be more rational to not employ it?

How can I know that there is no "deceiving demon" constantly manipulating my sensory input and even memories "behind the scenes" of my consciousness? I cannot so far as the illusion is perfect. But if the illusion is perfect, then it is the "truth" as far as I am concerned.

The idea here is not to aim for a sort of "God's eye view" of the "truth", but for a personal, individual kind of truth. My contention is that this doesn't require the kind of "faith" that is commonly associated with religion.

As for mathematics, I think your comments are valid only if you have a view of mathematics, one not uncommon amongst mathematicians, that it has some sort of ideal existence independent of the physical universe. If you are willing to tie the existence of mathematics purely to a physical universe, then those problems ought to go away.